check_naming_conventions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It explains the default scope (authored) and the suppression of library internals, which is useful. It implies a read-only operation ('Return elements') but does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications or disclose any other side effects. Since it is a check tool, the read-only nature is reasonably inferred, but a more explicit statement would strengthen transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence and bulleted parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized—long enough to convey important defaults and pattern syntax but not padded. The most critical information (scope and its default) is front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., re-explaining 'authored' default), but overall it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the two parameters thoroughly and the behavioral context of suppression. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling check tools, but the description is otherwise complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only names and defaults (coverage 0%), so the description fully compensates. It explains the meaning of 'scope' with two enumerated values (authored vs all) and the exact suppression behavior, and it describes 'allowed_patterns' as a comma-separated regex list with concrete examples. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent everything needed to set parameters correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning elements that violate UML naming conventions. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('elements') and distinguishes from general validation tools like validate_model by focusing on naming. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state what it is not, so it doesn't fully differentiate within the family of check tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides detailed guidance on how to use the parameters (scope and allowed_patterns) with defaults and examples, which helps the agent invoke it correctly. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling validation tools (e.g., check_requirement_coverage, validate_model) or when not to use it, leaving the decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.